Schleiermacher's first exegetical work, "Concerning the so-called first Letter of Paul to Timothy; a critical open letter to J. C. Gass" (1807),2 developed from lectures at the Royal Prussian Friedrich's University at Halle, made scholarly history with regard to both method and result-the uncovering of deutero-Paulinism in the New Testament.3 The application of inner (or as it was called then: "higher") criticism to New Testament texts-prompted by Friedrich Schlegel, tested on the work of Plato, and expounded in introductions to translations of Plato since 18044-was entirely new, even though-as a change of paradigm (Thomas Kuhn)-it was in the air. A few years earlier, in the preface to the first volume of his Introduction totheNewTestament, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn had observed: "... higher criticism has thus far scarcely applied its power to the New Testament; in many cases it must first undertake the most laborious investigations in order to gain only a bit of ground, and only after repeated efforts will be in a position to compare itself with its lesser sisters."5

Schleiermacher's study took up this critical agenda and stirred up a corresponding commotion. Nevertheless, it had a remarkable fate: praised in friendly circles, in spite of its popular form (as an "open letter" in the German language), it was seldom purchased,6 more or less clearly torn to pieces in most reviews, attacked in monographs, and finally survived in a radicalized version that was foreign to the author himself and which he could not approve.

The reception of the work, which is described in what follows,7 shows in an exemplary way the difficulties a scholarly established situation has in opening itself to a new way of questioning and-above all-accepting new answers to new questions and extending the thinking in a productive way. From the beginning, the debate about authorship was caught up in the alternatives "authentic or inauthentic," instead of taking cognizance of what had been gained with regard to the illumination of the situation of the early Christian community in the third generation. Schleiermacher's opponents feared the loss of some Pauline epistles and so also the trustworthiness of the early Christian tradition as such-a feeble position that burdens the progress of the debate concerning the Pastoral Epistles until today. For ideological reasons, what had been methodologically achieved by Friedrich August Wolf in the investigation of Homer8 and by Schleiermacher himself in determining the authenticity of Plato's writings could not be accepted for the biblical writings. To this degree, in addition to the particular issue, the example of the reception of the bold and pioneering initial writing of Schleiermacher as a New Testament scholar-which as his lectures in Halle and Berlin show, this man, unsurpassed in versatility, demonstrably was more than anything else-is of theological-historical significance.

At this point, we can only provide a sketch of Schleiermacher's method (in contrast to the exegesis of his time). His accomplishment consisted not in bringing to bear new historical-philological linguistic material on the biblical text-which
was thoroughly familiar and, apart from occasional discoveries, derived second hand,9 but in putting new questions to the text with the help of these materials. These new questions, however, required new answers. It was not the tradition of the ancient church that, as was usually the case, provided Schleiermacher the standard for critical appraisal, and not at all the profusion of historical difficulties that arise from the assumption of authenticity.10 Decisive rather were the linguistic observations and the epistolographic analyses of forms (Gattungsanalysen). Non-Pauline phrases and a host of hapaxlegomena provided the decisive evidence against Pauline authorship, which was associated with an incoherent, discontinuous train of thought. Comparison with 2 Timothy and Titus (the authenticity of neither having been challenged, nor the speeches of Paul in Acts) showed Schleiermacher that 1 Timothy presented a compilation from both of these, and indeed that the first part derived mostly from Titus while the second part (from ch. 4) came from 2 Timothy. Schleiermacher perceived the purpose of this pseudonymous writing in, among other things, strengthening the office of deacons.

So much for a brief statement of Schleiermacher's methodology and results. The limitation of this investigation to the reception of the work in the first five years will become evident from what follows. I will first present (I) the reception in chronological sequence and then (II) investigate in more detail, in terms of theological history, the positions of individual reviewers.

I

It may come as no surprise that the recipient of the offering, Joachim Christian Gass (1766-1831), "Consistorial Assistant and Military Chaplain in Stettin," expressed his approval.11 The matter was too complex for Schleiermacher's non-theological family members and friends. Important for Schleiermacher, however, was the approval of his friends in linguistics, especially August Boeckh and G. L. Spalding, who communicated with him by letter. In addition to their intimate purpose, these private communications also have historical significance with reference to the university since they reflect Schleiermacher's insecure position at Halle (after the closing of the university in October, 1806, on account of the Napoleonic Wars) and disclose his desire to earn a call to Heidelberg on the basis of his work. He can tell Karl August von Brinckmann, his old friend: "Moreover, things are working out for me (with regard to the open letter) as I thought: all the linguists agree with me, but the theologians want no part of it, and hide themselves behind some traditional hypotheses which at this particular occasion I do not regard worth the effort to properly refute."12 Spalding clearly summarizes Schleiermacher's report when he writes: "Your faculty there must then be not very satisfied with their ex-Paul. What does Knapp say about it? And Niemeyer?"13 Against the background of a possible call to Heidelberg, Boeckh's opinion and report was important for Schleiermacher:

Your Timothy seems to create an outrageous spectacle everywhere; the Leipzig review attacked it on the spot, as this journal tends to do. Here, very few people who concern themselves with it really know what they should make of it; and I also don't know whether any one of them can make a judgment about it, with the exception of the peerless De Wette, who reviewed it in J[en.] A. L. Z.. From this, I again see how little even respectable people are able to break loose from old beliefs and prejudices and how most of them are more concerned about having a beautiful piece of material in order to weave some-thing new than with getting to the bottom of the matter. Because what is old is not so easily given up and some people think they see something sacred being snatched away from them, you will without doubt also have many opponents among the theologians; but you will certainly be regarded as evil by the church consistories.14

Schleiermacher's writing on 1 Timothy obviously cost him the call to Heidelberg.15

De Wette's disclosure was new to Schleiermacher. He adds the comment: "In a letter I received it is said that Eichhorn declared that the open letter pleased him, but he nevertheless finds fault with my appeal to the second letter to Timothy, because it is also inauthentic."16 Here Schleiermacher encounters for the first time the radical position that will finally prevail.

The main scholarly debate was carried out in public, namely, in reviews and very soon in monographic expositions. Since the first monograph -- the important work of Heinrich Ludwig Planck (1785-1831), a student and later a theology professor in Göttingen, BemerkungenüberdenerstenPaulinischenBriefandenTimotheusinBeziehungaufdaskritischeSendschreibenvonHrn. Prof. Fr. Schleiermacher17 -- already appeared in 1808, the two forms of reception could not long be kept separate. Rather, once caught up in the problem, the first reviews of the OpenLetter soon discussed Planck's work as well. In later reviews both works together were played off against one another. In what follows, therefore, the early reviews will always be accompanied by the review of Planck's Bemerkungen by the same author.

The first review appeared very quickly, on July 6, 1807, in the TübingischenGelehrtenAnzeigen.18 In accordance with the journal's custom, the reviewer is not named; it could have been D. Carl Christian Flatt, the Tübingen New Testament scholar. But the introductory sentences immediately make it clear what the reviewer thinks of the work:

With a great display of discernment, the writer, who is well-known to the scholarly community, attempts in this writing to demonstrate the inauthenticity of the first letter of Paul to Timothy. As little as either the value of many individual comments for interpretation of the letter or the profit that can be derived from it for the exercise of the critical spirit of investigation should fail to be recognized, the reviewer must nevertheless acknowledge that, in view of its primary purpose, the undesired muse[!] the writer has expended on this investigation seems to have been expended somewhat in vain. Indeed one would be tempted to regard the entire writing as a fine satire of similar critical investigations of the authenticity of other biblical or non-biblical works from antiquity-if the entire tone of the work were not so serious, and if the better counter-arguments had been raised up just as forcefully as the poor ones!

Then individual arguments of Schleiermacher were reviewed, e.g., the difficulties of agreement with accounts in Acts, the literary form of the letter, the vocabulary, with the summary:

Just as it is impossible for the reviewer to follow the entire argumentation of the writer, so also he would find it difficult to respond to all his objections. Nevertheless, he cannot refrain from mentioning several obvious mistakes, instances of sophistic reasoning, inconsistencies and vacuous subtleties for which the writer, by striving to be perspicacious, has become guilty, and incidentally also to recall how much more weighty the arguments are for the authenticity of this letter than the entire series of objections that are set forth in this writing in an almost triumphant way.

In what follows, the reviewer makes a series of particular objections and interpretative proposals intended to refute Schleiermacher's arguments. In particular, it seems unbelievable for him that a "forger" would have produced precisely those passages perceived by Schleiermacher as clumsy and unworthy of Paul (1 Tim 1:12-16; 5:23). Finally:

What is said on pp. 152ff. with much prolixity regarding the lack of composure and cohesion in this letter could for the most part serve rather as evidence for rather than against the authenticity of this letter. Is it not more natural that Paul would write to a friend with a lack of cohesion (particularly if while traveling he perhaps wrote hurriedly and irregularly), than that a forger, who was not dependent on time and circumstances, would falsely attribute to an apostle a rhapsodic letter whose parts had no coherence? Alongside this relation of internal evidence for and against the authenticity of this letter, more importance may appropriately be attributed to external testimonies from antiquity than attributed to them by the writer.

Since the fathers of the Church did not discuss the authenticity of the writing -- so can the review be summarize -- there is also no reason of late to doubt it.

In December, 1808, in the same journal, the same reviewer discussed "with pleasure" Heinrich Planck's monograph concerning Schleiermacher's work, and testified that it had depicted Schleiermacher's objections against the authenticity of 1 Timothy "in their nakedness and futility."19 After the review of Planck's writing, he once more vehemently takes issue with the psychological believability of the compilation theory:

The compiler must have combined the finest attentiveness with the greatest carelessness, unmistakable effort to prevent any discovery of the deception by the most precise imitation with inexcusable inattention to so many traces that betrayed the fraud.... Finally, it is impossible to understand how it would have been possible for the compiler to have this letter generally accepted as Pauline.

For this reviewer, Planck's defense of the authenticity of 1 Timothy was altogether beyond doubt.20

The way this review deals with Schleiermacher's basic thesis is entirely typical for the negative reaction to this work of the-admittedly-"famous scholars": since it was difficult to take the historical argumentation seriously, it was met with a mixture of psychological and exegetical objections, perhaps often individually worth considering, and the weak point of the problematic relationship of the Pastoral Epistles with one another was also unerringly addressed; but all that cannot really do justice to the design as a whole. The thesis of deutero-Paulinism is too daring to be examined without prejudice and without emotion. We do not know whether Schleiermacher was familiar with the Tübingen review.

NeueTheologischeAnnalen, a journal appearing in Tübingen (after 1808 with a reference to Ludwig Wachler [1767-1838] as the publisher), expressed its opinion again and again about Schleiermacher's book, or the problems it presented. Already in 1807, a discussion appeared by an unnamed reviewer who obviously could not deal at all with Schleiermacher's argumentation.21 He reported on the biographical beginning and gave a rough overview of the hypothesis, the evaluation of which he left to other scholars; but he persevered with criticism of the style, which he felt to be ponderous and tiring for the reader and not worthy of the man "who after all has been called the Teutonic Plato." With regard to the evaluation of authenticity, the reviewer makes the following original objection to Schleiermacher's "extraordinary acumen": "No one doubts for a moment that after seventeen hundred years many poems that Göthe, Schiller, andVos really wrote, and even some by professor Schleyermacher himself, if his name and his writings are still known then, letters that he certainly wrote, could be disputed with admirable acumen and irrefutable arguments."

With visible relief, in 1809 the same reviewer took up Planck's work, whom he can not thank enough for his praiseworthy defense of the disputed New Testament writing.22 Reflecting the discussion by Planck, Schleiermacher's arguments are reviewed in more detail than in the first review, being now refuted by Planck. As his own thoughts about semantic observations, he adds that the vocabulary of the esteemed superintendent in its circulation to the diocesan clergy differed from that in the confidential letters to a close friend. While the poor style of Schleiermacher's writing was reproved, in Planck's case the reviewer now praises the "good tone" of the author, as the product of a better, more liberal time, which, with all the learned polemic against the attack on a canonical book, nevertheless treated Schleiermacher "with complete honor."

In November, 1807, the Jenaische Literatur-Zeitung published a detailed review, which took two issues.23 It is signed with a Hebrew taw, which, as Schleiermacher soon learned, was the review code for Wilhelm Martin Leberecht DeWette (1780-1849), his later faculty colleague and friend in Berlin.24 Even if still speckled with doubt, this was the first affirming review.

De Wette began full-toned: "The highly versatile author, always appearing with distinction, has applied to the N. T. the critical acuteness which was a delight for the works of Plato-and not in vain! He has seen what as yet no one saw: he demonstrates that the first letter to Timothy was not written by Paul." He then wishes, to be sure, that an upright scholar, deeply concerned with the affirmation of the religion, might achieve a refutation, for it is nevertheless "merely an historical gain, and otherwise a sorrowful loss if before the first letter of Paul to Timothy we must place so-called." Schleiermacher's semantic arguments are presented in detail, with only occasional objections. After examining the linguistic peculiarities of 1 Timothy, De Wette makes the hypothetical objection that with this kind of argument one could render every letter suspect, which must necessarily have "something of its own," and points out, first of all, that this would also be true then for the other Pastoral Epistles. To be sure, he draws no historical conclusions from this observation, but he asks: "Does it not seem to follow from the linguistic peculiarities... that a writer such as Paul, who is not accomplished in speaking, might one time lay hold of this word and another time that word?" With regard to the contradictions between historical statements in 1 Timothy and Acts, he weighs the possibility of saving the historicity of the letter at the expense of Acts. De Wette was very impressed by Schleiermacher's reflections on the letter form (Briefgattung). He reviews very precisely the further argument, explaining the letter's lack of coherence from its being a compilation of Titus and 2 Timothy, without criticizing Schleiermacher's claim for being too severe. In summarizing, it seems to him that the hypothesis of a forgery of an apostolic letter has its weakness in the "improbability that such a simple, untrained, insignificant writer would have employed so much art to conceal the fiction, and that his supposed purpose-the remarks concerning the situation of widows-receives such brief attention. In view of these objections, the concluding remark is surprising:

Should this and the other incidental objections raised here come to nothing against the numerous, well-ordered and concentrically working arguments of the challenger of our letter, which is perhaps something to be afraid of, the reviewer wants to have reserved for himself [a place] as one of the first to concur with Mr. Schleiermacher. This rejection of the first letter to Timothy is the first example in the history of Old and New Testament historical criticism where the first notion and the complete demonstration come together in one blow.

De Wette later also reviewed Planck's writing in similar detail.25 He refers back thereby to his review of Schleiermacher's work, which in view of other disparaging discussions has remained the only positive one. He welcomes the monograph as the first truly scientifically grounded attempt at refutation with discernment and learning: "...if this is not victorious, it is hardly possible for any other." In conclusion, he then observes:

We can certainly assure the author the approval of the public. His discerning efforts, supported by theological concern and love for what is ancient and positive, will never miss their mark. Whoever is able, however, to maintain critical skepticism about certain things, as little as he will have sworn unconditional belief in Schleiermacher's argumentation, will not regard it as disposed of after this refutation and set aside its arguments. The author's laborious, artificial defense itself betrays that the contested letter is beset with difficulties not easily cleared away.26

Schleiermacher had become aware of De Wette's review. When Boeckh divulged the name to him, he wrote back: "It was interesting to hear that De Wette produced the review of Timothy, but unexpected. I had almost feared that you were not really equal to the matter, and I was suspicious of Eichstaedt. Somewhat more erudite and, to be sure, possibly also somewhat less encumbered, I thought that your colleague would have handled the matter."27

In January 1808, the NeueLeipzigerLiteraturzeitung seized the opportunity for a fundamental examination of "the higher, or divinatory criticism of the New Testament" apropos the discussion of the work of Schleiermacher and a work concerning the authenticity of 2 Peter and Jude.28 The author remained anonymous. A brief sketch of the basic principles of higher criticism had appeared prior to the actual review, for which reflection on these writings, especially Schleiermacher's, now provided examples. The review itself, to be sure, declared Schleiermacher's results to be unconvincing: "...we have found in this writing [1 Timothy] not
one sentence, not one idea, that disagrees with Pauline teaching and thought." With regard to the semantics of the letter, one must bear in mind that for Paul "the Aramaic language would have been more common"; the problems of historical dating could probably be resolved by working out the separation hypotheses of 2 Corinthians; and the lack of coherence can be explained from its history of origin-on a journey, with interruptions and various dispositions. Above all, the reviewer criticized the fact that the reason for the forgery could not really be clarified.

Schleiermacher also became aware of this notable review. Boeckh respectfully informed him: "...the Leipzig reviewer has attacked from the right flank, as this journal tends to do."29 Schleiermacher did not allow himself to become involved in serious argumentation: "If the man from Leipzig can name only one dissertation that has not been made use of, he instantly thinks he has been fully justified."30 - In 1809, the journal published a very positive discussion of Planck's work, that was referred to as a "model of judicious criticism" through which the "authenticity" of the letter has been "saved."31

Another anonymous review appeared in August, 1908, in the GöttingischenGelehrtenAnzeigen, in which Schleiermacher's argumentation was evaluated with many question marks and found to be inadequate.32 The reviewer was Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer (1768-1816), at that time professor of theology in Altdorf.33 He observed again and again that Schleiermacher's criteria would also apply to the other Pastoral epistles, and thus provided no basis for non-authenticity. He regarded as useful a comparison with the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians, which have a very similar relationship with one another. In December the same journal presented a likewise anonymous, detailed analysis of the work by Planck, which-according to an old marginal note-derived from the author himself.34 No response from Schleiermacher is known.

In September 1808, the HeidelbergischenJahrbücherderLiteratur published a very detailed review.35 The review contained no signature, but the table of contents said "by Beckhaus," i.e., it was written by Mauritz Johann Heinrich Beckhaus (1768-1845).36 The reviewer referred to the "open letter" as a discerning and important attempt whose legitimacy, according to Protestant principles, cannot be disputed. To begin with, the reviewer refrains from making a decisive judgment (obviously rendered uncertain by De Wette's positive opinion). As he traces Schleiermacher's arguments, however, he accumulates such a wealth of "reservations" that he finally must declare Schleiermacher's conclusion to be hastily drawn and insufficiently grounded. Along with the linguistic commentary, his observation that the purpose which Schleiermacher attributes to the letter must indicate a much later time is original, as well as his contention that Schleiermacher's rigorous comparison of this letter with the other Pastoral Epistles was unjustified, since one can say essentially the same thing about them as about 1 Timothy, with regard to both content and language.

As his own exegetical contribution, Beckhaus adds semantic observations which list words and forms of speech in 2 Timothy and Titus that, on the one hand, in the same way as in 1 Timothy, appear nowhere else in the Pauline writings and which, on the other hand, bind together all three writings
as distinct from the other Pauline writings. Nevertheless, the reviewer does not draw the conclusion that all three letters are deutero-Pauline. He cannot do that, since he regards it as conceivable that Timothy was still alive around the end of the first century, and as unthinkable therefore that in the region where Timothy had lived, where 2 Timothy must have already been known and no one had ever heard of 1 Timothy, a letter fabricated in the name of Paul could have been accepted as Pauline. We do not know whether Schleiermacher was aware of this interesting review, which gave a foreinkling of future developments.37

An unqualified affirmation of Schleiermacher's book was provided by Josias Friedrich Christian Löffler (1752-1816), General Superintendent and senior member of the Church Council in Gotha, in his MagazinfürPrediger, 1808.38 He found everything totally convincing and defended the legitimacy and usefulness of such a biblical-critical investigation. He did not see any harmful consequences for preaching. Finally, Löffler invites Schleiermacher to undertake an edition of the Pauline writings.

The letters would be ordered chronologically, perhaps according to Marcion's testimony, separated from and independent of the other New Testament writings, with which they have no essential connection... Why should he [Paul], who so maintained his independence from foreign authorities, not also be dealt with independently of the other writings of the Church? In such an edition, after criticism has collected the versions and other information, the actual critical and exegetical investigation of the apostle would begin.

The review was sent to Schleiermacher by the publisher, Friedrich Frommann. With regard to the invitation for an edition of the Pauline writings, Schleiermacher answered: "I have at least decided to prepare for that, but I don't want to guarantee that I will ever come to feel that my strength is sufficient for the work."39

Here, we can also cite Johann Leonhard Hug (1765-1846), professor of theology in Freiburg, who in his EinleitungindieSchriftendesNeuenTestaments (1808) rejected Schleiermacher's hypothesis for linguistic-statistical reasons, because one can-
not require that Paul must always use the same words.40 Hug obviously did not understand Schleiermacher's method of interrogation. Nevertheless, he received praise from Friedrich Creuzer, professor of ancient philology in Heidelberg, who believed him-
self to be supported by Hug in his rejection of this "wolfish philology."41

The situation of the scholarly debate of Schleiermacher's hypotheses had developed this far when Heinrich Planck's
work appeared on the market.42 In the title it promised merely "remarks" concerning Schleiermacher's critical "open letter," but actually delivered, in a remarkable, special monograph, the detailed contestation that many reviewers had hoped for and now greeted with approval. In later treatments of the problem Schleiermacher and Planck are always considered together, until Eichhorn and Baur completely changed the formulation of the question.

Planck's work is written with a tone of respect: the writer wants to be fair to Schleiermacher in every way and reviews him so precisely that the "open letter" could actually be reconstructed. Planck acknowledges to Schleiermacher at the beginning that "following the same path as the open letter," he arrived at his opposite result, i.e., he followed him not only in the course of his argumentation, but also in method, whereby in the entire book he nevertheless strived to demonstrate as true precisely what Schleiermacher contested, and vice versa. The balancing that became possible thereby was productive for later research.

First of all, Planck disagreed with Schleiermacher's presumption that one should expect a consistent use of language, since this was to be expected from no writer trained in rhetoric. Moreover, in listing the hapaxlegomena and supposed non-Pauline phrases, Schleiermacher could not identify a single word that was demonstrably foreign to the time of Paul. Planck worked through all the passages that Schleiermacher had cited, and attempted to show in each case that Schleiermacher's conclusion was not necessary. He appealed to the same lexicon as Schleiermacher, in particular to Schleusner and Wettstein-i.e., he produced no new semantic material or new observations.

A real advance in dealing with the problem-whose consequences, however, Planck did not assess-derives from the demonstration that when the same analytical method is applied to the other letters of Paul, especially the two other Pastoral letters, it produces the same result.43 Whereas Schleiermacher had listed 81 hapaxlegomena for 1 Timothy, Planck identifies 63 for 2 Timothy and 44 for Titus, which is proportionally even more remarkable. Planck points out similar features also in other Pauline writings (54 in Philippians; 57 in Galatians; and 143 in Ephesians/Colossians). From this he infers the inadequacy of word statistics for the question of authenticity. It could only be regarded as convincing if it could be demonstrated that everywhere else Paul employs a fixed, limited vocabulary.

Even Schleiermacher's compilation thesis, which derives
from the similarities and agreements, is subjected to a detailed critique. As a new solution to the problem, Planck here proposes that the letter to Titus originated at the same time as 1 Timothy. The general historical objections which arise from a comparison of circumstance of time and place with Acts are resolved by psychological considerations concerning Paul the traveler and his concern for his very young friend. Finally, the argument that appeals to the very general disposition and development of the letter is rejected. 1 Timothy completely corresponds with the form that Schleiermacher determined for Galatians and Titus, i.e., an instructional and business-like form has the upper hand in contrast to a confidential tone. Planck explains the unevenness of the train of thought, in so far as it is even acknowledged, from the haste of this "business letter" on Paul's journey. An original proposal is that the concluding verse of the third chapter, that stands in tension with the context, be understood as originally intended to be a concluding verse, from which the obscure Christ hymn-not recognized as such- arises because of the "quick transition to a new idea by the letter writer,"44 which one must overlook for Paul.

In what follows, Planck becomes increasingly impatient with Schleiermacher, his "innumerable inaccuracies," "affectation," "incorrect historical points," and "entirely ungrounded presuppositions." Against Schleiermacher's interpretation, Planck observed that citations from the church fathers regarding the office of deacon in the ancient Church are employed out of context-which was painful for Schleiermacher, since he had taken the citations from secondary literature without checking them.45 The arrangement of the last two chapters of 1 Timothy is again explained from the apostle's "state of mind" while traveling, and the "postscript" after the doxology in 6:17ff is justified in the same way. At the end of his book, Planck lists a series of questions for which, from the perspective of higher criticism, with his presumption of pseudonymity, Schleiermacher should have provided more convincing answers than he did. He was not able to set forth a really plausible, positive purpose for this "fraud," nor did he indicate a historically conceivable time of origin; he was unable to develop a psychological profile of the plagiarizer; the personal comments are disingenuous; and finally, he could also not provide a convincing explanation for how such a "concoction" could have been passed off in the ancient Church as authentic. Planck thus arrives at the self-certain conclusion that the letter must be allowed to retain its traditional place among the Pauline writings. Indeed, in view of the plethora of his counter arguments, he even questions whether Schleiermacher was serious with his critical endeavor and did not only want to play "a game of wit and acumen in order to see how far and with what appearance of probability such critical pyrrhusianism could be carried."46

Schleiermacher was naturally aware of this work, and was especially annoyed by the conclusion. He wrote in a letter that he felt no obligation to change his opinion: "In spite of all his knowledge, Planck is entirely lacking the critical acumen to sense the importance of certain arguments, how I must make inferences from the views he is contented with; and it is a youthful exaggeration that at the end of the otherwise less than cordial writing he raises the question whether I was perhaps not serious about the entire matter."47

The reviews of Planck's work, in so far as they were treated in reviews of Schleiermacher, were already discussed above. The two reviews in the NeuenTheologischenAnnalen were clearly inadequate. In 1809 it published a very comprehensive, scholarly double-review by a different expert under the title "Regarding the Most Recent Investigations of the Authenticity of the First Letter of Paul to Timothy, With Some General Remarks Concerning the Application of Higher Criticism to the New Testament Writings."48 The unnamed reviewer speaks in the name of the journal,
and therefore must have had an important position with it. He declares close familiarity with Schleiermacher, namely, to have "admired his characteristic acuteness and marvelous capability for abstraction... often and very close up." Although not unmasked by this information, we probably have to do therefore with a scholar from Halle or Berlin.

The opening sentences clearly reflect the impression that Schleiermacher's "open letter" had made on the theological scene:

Among the most recent appearances in the area of theological literature, hardly any has stirred up more attention or higher interest than the writing by the discerning Schleiermacher, through which a letter of the New Testament, the first letter of Paul to Timothy, generally held until now--one can definitely say--to be doubtlessly authentic, is declared to be spurious. If this thesis was in fact a thunderbolt for many theologians (we have had sufficient opportunity to observe it), even more were shaken up because it derives from a hero of such criticism, who long ago sufficiently attested his authority and his calling to this kind of work by his treatment of Plato-and because this onset of destruction brings something even worse to fear, namely, a continuation and, in so far as one does not forcefully put a stop to it, a tragic end for the entire theological foundation firmly regarded as unshakable.

The reviewer writes with respect about Schleiermacher's style, but nevertheless expresses regret that the work was not written in Latin. "His wonderful dialectical skill nevertheless defends and easily justifies what it desires. This sometimes really seemed dangerous to us." He explicitly affirms the necessity for historical-critical investigation of biblical texts. In the further course of the review, he respectively presents what Schleiermacher and Planck each have to say about the same subject and then discusses both. He regards Planck's presentation as far more convincing. Schleiermacher is said to be too critical and confuses Paul with Plato when he presupposes unchanging characteristics of language and continuous train of thought. The work of higher-criticism must be carried out on the books of the New Testament with special caution, because it rests to a large extent on subjectivity. In conclusion, the reviewer summarizes:

Perpetual controversy will certainly prevail regarding the authenticity of some monuments from antiquity, and everyone will never profess one belief. If we are not very mistaken, this will be the future destiny of the first letter to Timothy. For more than anywhere else, here, as with the NT writers in general, conviction rests on a subjective, critical sensitivity. Just as one can certainly believe, therefore, in spite of the many contradictions discovered by Schleiermacher, that he himself will nevertheless maintain his individual conviction, so also his proofs also will not be in a position to deprive most people of their belief in the authenticity of that letter.

With regard to the future history of the debate concerning deutero-Paulinism, these sentences are certainly somewhat prophetic. Whether Schleiermacher was aware of this review is unknown.

The year 1810 brought an additional scholarly monograph-a new commentary that took Schleiermacher into consideration-as well as the final review. In a dissertation written in Latin, Joachim Friedrich Beckhaus endeavored to relegate Schleiermacher's semantic observations to the closet.49 He again musters the evidence in the early Church for knowledge of 1 Timothy and, in particular, thinks he can show that 1 Peter presupposes this knowledge. His actual accomplishment is the investigation of the hapaxlegomena and rare phrases which Schleiermacher himself had run up against. He examines them with reference to their meaning, linguistic formation, and appearances in Christian and pagan writers-whereby he lists what dictionaries and commentaries mediate-and believes himself able to show that nothing necessitates the conclusion that Paul could not have said such things.

In the same year, as the first release in a commentary series on the Pauline writings, the volume TheFirstLetteroftheApostlePaultoTimothy. NewlyTranslatedandExplainedwithReferencetotheMostRecentInvestigationsofitsAuthenticity, by Julius August Ludwig Wegscheider (1771-1849) appeared.50 The author, professor of theology and philosophy at Halle since 1810 and as such the successor to Schleiermacher, emphasizes in the introduction that he wants to hold proper respect for the basic principles of a true grammatical-historical interpretation. The most recent investigations referred to in the subtitle are those by Schleiermacher and Planck, whereby Wegscheider comes down completely on the side of Planck. To be sure, he praises the "critical and skeptical acumen" of the "famous translator of Plato" (this is already a platitude), but regards his hypothesis as having been refuted by Planck. The semantic observations are dismissed on account of Paul's changeable life, which had changing language as its consequence; the relatedness of the Pastorals is derived from their common time of origin; and the historical difficulties concerning the time and place addressed by the letter are solved by the familiar theory of two imprisonments of Paul in Rome, between which further trips by the apostle to Macedonia could have taken place. Some ideas and arguments that might have advanced Planck's apology are not found here, apart from the (also familiar) later dating of the letter in the year 65.

The last review was presented in Halle by the AllgemeineLiteratur-Zeitung in October 1810, and indeed as a triple-review of the works of Schleiermacher, Planck and Wegscheider.51 The reviewer remained anonymous. He regards Schleiermacher as arrogant and frivolous, in any case not a serious and prudently thinking theologian, and would like to ascribe merely a gymnastic significance to the work: "...we regard it as very advantageous that from time to time theologians inclined to lethargy are offended by such a writing and again made wide awake, provided also that one does not take his skepticism with such complete seriousness." The reviewer regards 1 Timothy to be sufficiently defended by Planck for the time being, in which regard it is strengthened by Wegscheider's work.

As a follow-up, the review by J.F.C. Löffler should also be mentioned, who in connection with his discussion of Schleiermacher (summarized above) addressed the works of Planck and Wegscheider in the MagazinfürPrediger in 1811.52 Planck had so impressed Löffler that he openly admitted his uncertainty. The fact that the first letter was not mentioned by Paul in his second letter, where there was opportunity to do so, remains a last reservation for him regarding the authenticity of the first letter. He was not convinced by Wegscheider's hypothesis of a second imprisonment. And once again he invited Schleiermacher to undertake a chronologically ordered edition of the letters of Paul.

It is clear that the debate had run its course. What there was to say had been said. One often had the impression that a stalemate had prevailed between the positions. Schleiermacher's composition hypothesis had been shaken, as well as the claim of linguistic particularity for 1 Timothy over against 2 Timothy and Titus. If the latter writings were regarded as authentic, contesting the authenticity of 1 Timothy seemed somewhat arbitrary. On
the other hand, Schleiermacher's form-historical observations,
his historical objections, and his assignment of a late date for conceptual-historical reasons could not be shoved aside. A new initiative was needed in the argument. And this was fulfilled in 1812 by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827) in his IntroductiontotheNewTestament.53 He showed that with regard to their theological conceptions the Pastoral Epistles belong together, that they exhibit the same language, that they presuppose the same historical situation-and that this situation cannot be historically connected with Paul. As might be expected from the letter cited above, Eichhorn emphasizes in a note his priority over against Schleiermacher and the independence of his initiative: "The investigation I will present on the following pages, including its conclusions, is much earlier than the appearance of Schleiermacher's critical open letter (Berlin 1807/8), in which he took up the authenticity of the first letter to Timothy. I allowed my own investigation to continue the course on which it reached its conclusions all the more, however, since it still differs from that of the learned and acute writer of the open letter, and goes much further."54

With this, the immediate reviews of Schleiermacher's hypothesis ceased. It continued to be present in the scholarly discussion in Eichhorn's radicalized form. That remained true even if Ferdinand Christian Baur could write in 1835 that on the whole the investigation of the "so-called Pastoral Epistles" still stands in the same place "on which the question was left behind by Schleiermacher, who at that time had first raised the issue in his well-known open letter regarding the so-called first letter of Paul to Timothy (Berlin 1807), and by his first opponents."55 Schleiermacher had never agreed with the extension of his criticism to the two other Pastoral Epistles,56 no more than he regarded himself as having been refuted by his "first opponents." At this point, scholarly developments had passed him by.

II

The reception of Schleiermacher's writing on Timothy certainly shows what kind of "thunderbolt"--as the Marburg reviewer expressed it--had shaken up the contemporary exegesis. If one observes the acceptance, it becomes apparent in an exemplary way how, to different degrees, fear of the hypothesis of deutero-Paulinism obscured sight of its historical contribution. The debate with this hypothesis, therefore, was finally produced by-often scarcely concealed-ideologies. One can thus separate Schleiermacher's opponents into several groups, whose argumentative starting points must be evaluated differently from a theological-historical perspective.

(1) That Hug, the Catholic reviewer, in his "Introduction," which on the whole is by all means impressively solid, could not ratify Schleiermacher's way of questioning is not surprising. To be sure, Hug is regarded as the most significant Roman Catholic exegete in the first half of the nineteenth century, who occupied himself more than almost anyone with historical method-his contribution to New Testament textual research is often regarded as pointing the way, even by Schleiermacher57- and who sought give and take with Protestant biblical scholarship. Nevertheless, all his erudition finally served as an apology for the traditional Church position, which excluded conclusions in the form of "negative" biblical criticism.58 This would remain symptomatic for Catholic exegesis for a long time.

(2) All the other critics were in a conspicuous hurry to basically affirm the right of historical work on the biblical texts (to be sure, to demonstrate that in this case its results were erroneous). The assurance nevertheless showed very clearly that the historical-critical way of working, having emerged from the Enlightenment, had prevailed in the scholarly community; one could no longer pull back behind this standard. For the reviewers from Tübingen and Halle, however, the building of historical hypotheses had only a gymnastic purpose of strengthening the reasoning power of theologians. Behind this stood the fear that through historical work the foundation of Christianity as a religion grounded on historical evidence could be shaken.
The reviewer from Halle may well have read in Schleiermacher's Räsonnement that "the godliness of scripture" can be nothing else "than the godliness of what is contained therein, namely, Christianity itself," and that therefore in all discussion of authenticity what is "important" and "useful" for the preacher in an individual biblical writing cannot in any way be lost.59 But Schleiermacher makes it "a bit too simple" here, we are told, for it cannot be a matter of indifference for any theologian with a serious and prudent way of thinking "whether, e.g., the first letter to Timothy was written by the apostle Paul or by a deceiver; for in theology it is certainly of great importance whether the writings of the NT are authentic or not."60 For this reviewer, doubt regarding one writing functioned like a break in a dam: what holds for one must be proper for all, and consequently, the entire New Testament is subject to doubt-which cannot be a matter of indifference for the truth of biblical faith.61 The reviewer from Marburg (himself a liberal) similarly reported the opinions of many theologians when he raised up as the final consequence the ruin of the entire theological foundation that had been thought to be unshakable.62 Here the fear of historical judgments is expressed very clearly, without-thanks to Planck-a radical consequence having to be drawn: historical research should be permitted as long and in so far as its results do not turn out to be too radical-too skeptical. To be sure, with this restrictive position-one may call it the "historical-conservative" position-the problems were only pushed aside, not permanently overcome.63

(3) By far the greatest number of reviewers, as far as a position can be recognized, would be included in the grammatical-historical school,64 which at this time was also dominant in philology. Theologically, its representatives were generally what E. Hirsch called "Half-way Rationalists,"65 i.e., they combine competency, even virtuosity, in the linguistic investigation of biblical texts with cautious historical judgments. As shining examples, we can recall the reviews from Heidelberg (M.J.H. Beckhaus)66 and Leipzig. Beckhaus was able to match Schleiermacher in the field of semantic analysis and even anticipated the later development in linguistic evaluation of the Pastoral Epistles, but he stopped here and did not attempt to place his observations in a larger historical framework. With all his stress on free Protestant principles, he is nevertheless so blinded by the question of authenticity that if 1 Timothy can be shown from a "purely historical" perspective to be a "falsified concoction" it can no longer have a place in the canon.67 And all his boasting about the necessity for a "solid theory of higher biblical criticism" cannot drown out
the fear that on Schleiermacher's path "everything could finally become uncertain and unreliable."68

As we saw, the Leipzig reviewer sketched out such a "higher, or divinatory criticism of the New Testament" at the beginning of his discussion, and even if, with appeal to the Church fathers and the Reformers, he champions "freedom of investigation, skepticism, and, where sufficient grounds are present, rejection," since otherwise reverence for ancient sacred artifacts becomes "superstition," he is nevertheless afraid of possible "frivolity" in this matter69 and erects such a high hurdle for a negative decision that Schleiermacher, in any case, could be portrayed as having stumbled over it.

In the first Marburg reviewer one can sense gratitude for Planck's refutation that allows him to praise the "liberal principles" of a "better age," which even empowered a learned Protestant theologian "to submit the canonical books of the Bible to an investigation of their authenticity like that applied to other artifacts from antiquity."70 One can also place here the Göttingen reviewer, G. W. Meyer from Altdorf, since it reflects the Göttingen tradition.71 Finally, one must also include H. L. Planck in the grammatical-historical group, who had qualified as lecturer in the theological faculty in 1807 and who was clearly patronized by Göttingen's GelehrtenAnzeige with the possibility of him reviewing his own work against Schleiermacher.72 He did not yet have a theological position of his own. While he was a twenty-three year old student (Repentent), he pitted himself against Schleiermacher's broadside, from which he appropriated the theme, the method and (only in reverse) the result.

(4) The most distinct position was that of W.M.L. De Wette, precisely because it was so fluctuating (and remained so throughout his life). It is generally known that De Wette belongs to the fathers of historical-critical investigation of the Old Testament; but this is true also for the New Testament.73 When he reviewed Schleiermacher's work he was just twenty-seven years old, having become only recently a professor in Heidelberg, and, assisted by Frisian philosophy, was still working to find his own theological system. On account of its "flatness," he wanted to overcome, or, better, deepen the grammatical-historical method of interpretation through a lively historical perspective in the sense of Herder's. He believed that all scholarly research should finally serve the work of the Church. So De Wette's work may be called a "mediating theology" in the best sense. For his entire life he suffered under the tension between historical criticism, which was obviously to be pursued, and the needs of the Church's faith. In the forward to his Lehrbuchderhistorisch-kritischenEinleitungindiekanonischenBücherdesNeuenTestaments [TextbookfortheHistorical-criticalIntroductiontotheCanonicalBooksoftheNewTestament] from 1826 it says: "The friends of critical investigation will not be satisfied by the mostly indefinite results. On the other hand, those persons who view our holy scriptures only with the eyes of pious devotion will feel offended by the freedom of the investigation."74 This same melancholy can also be sensed in the review mentioned above, where the wish that Schleiermacher might be wrong can be perceived, but which does not conceal his arguments. Even for De Wette, the "merely historical gain" can not make amends for the "sorrowful loss" of authenticity for a New Testament letter.75

(5) The great summarizing Marburg review from 1809, the review of Löffler, and the work of Wegscheider are written from a rationalistic perspective. Even the Marburg reviewer feels the need to include in his discussion "remarks... concerning the application of higher criticism to the books of the New Testament,"76 which indeed urge care and discretion, but nevertheless submit the biblical writings without hesitation to the rules applying to all ancient writings and-as we saw-declare historical judgment in the sphere of critical subjectivity to be fundamentally open.

J. F. Ch. Löffler,77 the rationalist from Gotha, emphasized the legitimacy and usefulness of such an investigation. "Either, as long as you fear the results, no investigation at all takes place, assuming that you could prohibit it, or if you cannot, the investigation takes place without restriction."78 The benefit always consists at least in the exercise of the power of the mind. But one also does not have to be afraid of the results, for the Christian truth cannot suffer because of the proof of the inauthenticity of a writing, "since we know that how many books of the New Testament a truth appears in is not decisive, or how often it appears therein, but only whether it appears therein, or if it does not appear, whether it is in accordance with the spirit of Christianity." Indeed, precisely those persons-so Löffler ironically turns against the representatives of orthodoxy-"who are convinced that they find in the New Testament a direct revelation" must feel an obligation of gratitude to Schleiermacher, since "in this way they are protected from the danger of holding something to be true and authoritative because it stands in this book, which is nevertheless not a book of the apostle." Moreover, he does not regard the theological loss of the letter as great, since most of it is also found elsewhere and since in common practice historically doubtful texts do not otherwise hinder edifying preaching. For him, the final guiding rule for all theological judgments is "the spirit of Christianity."

Finally, one must also place the rationalist Wegscheider in this series,79 even if his historical judgment came out differently than Löffler's. He believed himself to be basically near to Schleiermacher with regard to method and later attempted to establish a conversation with him by sending him a copy of his own InstitutionesTheologiaeChristrianaeDogmaticae..80 He wants to maintain appropriate respect for the basic principles of a correct grammatical-historical interpretation. For him, anything else simply does not come into question, and the works of Schleiermacher and Planck, "which have made the first letter to Timothy of special interest at this time," are thus "too important" for him "that they should not be carefully examined and utilized."81 That he was convinced by the counter arguments of Planck cannot be traced back to ideological reservations. For this man, otherwise systematically and philosophically concerned, one would rather suspect a competitive relationship with Schleiermacher, for whose old chair he wanted to exegetically certify himself.

If one looks back on the reception of Schleiermacher's writing on Timothy, the extent to which this work challenged contemporary historical and theological scholarship is very impressive. That-so far as can be determined-it was, above all others, the generation of those under thirty years old (Planck, J.F. Beckhaus, De Wette) up to those around his same age (J.H. Beckhaus, Meyer, Wegscheider) who were provoked by him might be accidental, in view of the remaining anonymous reviews; but the finding is certainly not without significance. It was the theological activity emerging in the new century that had to theoretically justify and practically experiment with the new scholarly methodology of "higher criticism" in biblical research. Schleiermacher's "open letter" set a standard for this in that (especially De Wette expressed it very clearly) the initial idea and the complete demonstration coincided. The "thunderbolt" of the disclosure of deutero-Paulinism in the New Testament convulsed the self-understanding of a community of biblical scholars not yet really prepared for it; indeed, in its own way, it reverberates in New Testament scholarship until today-certainly not for the last time in Jubilar's commentary on 1 Timothy. However, the tragedy of this exemplary work in the history of scholarship is that the first responses could pre-determine the general outline of the future discussion in such a one-sided way, without the author's unencumbered style of historical and theological exposition and argumentation being fruitfully appropriated and further developed.

1The present essay originated as a consequence of work on the Halle writings of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, in which I will historical-critically edit section 1, vol. 5 of the Kritischen Gesamtausgabe [complete critical edition]. I dedicate it in celebration of the 60th birthday, on September 29, 1990, of the person whose KommentarzumErstenBriefanTimotheus (EKK XV, 1988), has set an enduring standard, and at the same time in memory of our common teacher, Leonhard Goppelt.

10 Schleiermacher appealed here with only partial justification to Johann Ernst Christian Schmidt (1772-1831), who in his Historisch-kritischenEinleitungin'sNeueTestament (= KritischeGeschichtederneutestamentlichenSchriften, part 1, 1804, 259-262), in no way drew the conclusion of pseudonymity. Schmidt, professor of theology in Giessen, who had composed his outstanding work "entirely from the perspective of the historian" (Forward, p. III), clearly identified the difficulties in reconciling the information in 1 Timothy with that found in Acts and the other letters of Paul, but fell back on the hypothesis that Timothy remained in Ephesus for only a short time and soon joined Paul again. The only-actually decisive-objection that Schmidt himself makes in a note betrays his still lingering doubt: "This conjecture, however, does not fit very well with the postulate that Timothy had been left behind as Bishop in Ephesus" (261).

11Fr. Schleiermacher'sBriefwechselmitJ. Chr. Gass. MiteinerbiographischenVorrede, Dr. W[ilhelm] Gass (ed.), 1852, 68ff. Concerning Gass, see AllgemeineDeutscheBiographie, vol. 8, 1878, 394-396. A close friend of Schleiermacher's from 1804 until his death, Gass became a member of the provincial consistory of Silesia in 1810 and professor of systematic and practical theology in Breslau in 1811.

15 See Boeckh's letter from March 28, 1808 (Ibid., 23f.). This is confirmed by Creuzer's internal disclosure: F. H. Ch. Schwarz and Karl Daub are against the call "above all because, on account of his book on the letter of Timothy, Schleiermacher is under some suspicion of heterodoxy." Letter from May 17, 1808: BriefeFriedrichCreuzersonSavigny, 1799-1850. (H. Dahlmann, 1972), 240.

20 This review, which was finally critical of Planck as well, betrayed an exhaustive engagement with difficulties raised up by Schleiermacher as its primary concern. That speaks for its authorship by Carl Christian Flatt, who just in the Winter semester 1908/09 explicated the smaller letters of Paul in private lectures (Addendum to GelehrteAnzeigen, Vol. 65). D. von Schnurrer, however, had already dealt with the letters to Timothy and Titus in public lectures in Tübingen in the Summer semester, 1808 (Addendum to GelehrteAnzeigen, Vol. 23). Flatt's posthumously edited monograph on the Pastoral Epistles-VorlesungenüberdieBriefePauliandenTimotheusundTitus, published after his death by Ch. F. Kling in 1831, with annotations and augmented with a presentation of the UntersuchungenübertheAechtheitundAbfassungszeitderPastoralbriefe, was based, according to the Forward, on a manuscript from 1802/04 and a later booklet from 1808. It contained no debate with Schleiermacher. Even the publisher of the Tübingen review did not know who was the reviewer (424f.).

22 Ibid. (1809), Vol. 2, 647-653. In 1808, the claim, without further grounds, made by a certain Ant. Theod. Hartmann, from Oldenburg, was printed: "The authenticity of the letter of the apostle Paul to Timothy is not in the least shaken by Schleiermacher's attack (Vol. 1, 320).

26 In his LerhbuchderhistorischkritischenEinleitungindiekanonischenBücherdesNeuenTestaments, (21830, 275-288), De Wette weighed a combination of Schleiermacher and Eichhorn, i.e., that all the Pastorals might be inauthentic, but that 1 Tim was compiled from 2 Tim and Titus (286f.). On the whole, however, here he held the critical doubt of authenticity to be not yet sufficient to upset the sacred belief in the authenticity of these letters that has existed for centuries.

37 Boeckh, the editor of the journal, makes no mention of this review in his exchange of letters with Schleiermacher.

38MagazinfürPrediger, published by Josias Friedrich Christian Löffler, vol. 4/1 (1808), 49-68; citation from p. 68. Schleiermacher's name was familiar to Löffler since they both had published in the collection PredigtenvonprotestantischenGottesgelehrtenSiebenteSammlung. Berlin1799 (Reprinted under the title PredigtenvonprorestantischenGottesgelehrtenderAufklärungszeit, published by W. von Meding, 1989). The 1811 issue of the Magazin included a picture as well as two brief sermons by Schleiermacher.

41 Cf. O. Dammann, "Briefe Friedrich Creuzers an Johann Heinrich Christian Bang," in NeueHeidelbergerJahubücher, N.F., 1936, 34-51: 42, 45f. "I have still not heard anyone who applauds him. It would have to be someone who suffers from the same illness that I attribute to our otherwise learned Böckh, who respects nothing more in philology than to declare something inauthentic. It is the entire orientation of this school, whose style will find more and more imitators" (46). His pen partner, Bang, saw Schleiermacher's work as "nothing else... than vainly applied acumen, supported by erudition, which nevertheless does not convince me" (42, n. 18).

42 Regarding Planck, see supra, n. 17. Regarding his own review of his own work, see supra, n. 34.

43 Planck, BemerkungenüberdenerstenPaulinischenBriefandenTimotheus, 50ff. The review in the HeidelbergerJahrbüchern already made the same observation (see supra).

56 Cf. the letter to Twesten from March 14, 1819: "The inauthenticity of 1 Timothy has again remained certain for me in the interpretation; but likewise the authenticity of 2 Timothy and Titus. It seems to me that Eichhorn is entirely frivolous here" (C.F.G Heinrich, D. AugustTwestennachTagebüchernundBriefen (1889), 342). Schleiermacher also maintained this position in his lectures on Introduction to the New Testament (1829, as well as 1831/32) (SämmtlicheWerke 1.8: EinleitunginsneueTestament. AusSchleiermacher'shandschristlichemNachlasseundnachgeschriebenenVorlesungen, G. Wolde, ed., 1845, 166-175). Cf. in summary the ms. from 1829: "The matter of the three letters is therefore still the same for me: I know of nothing at all to raise against Titus; I have reservations about 2Timothy, but which are not strong enough to lead to a decision; 1Timothy, however, cannot be defended, even if I wanted to" (175f., note).

61 The grounds are formulated in a very affected way, probably not by accident: "Would it not make the oldest and most highly esteemed theologians tremble if a number of scholars, each of whom attacked only one book of the NT, with irrefutable arguments, as being inauthentic, and recognized the others as authentic, each of whom, however, called into question a different book, which the others regarded as authentic, represented all the writings of the NT, on which until then scholarly as well as popular theology had constructed the teachings of the Christian faith as on a firm basis, as spurious, falsified books?" (386f.)

62NeueTheologischeAnnalen, 1809, vol. 2, p. 813.

63 It is proper here to read what Franz Volkmar Reinhard (1753-1812),
a Lutheran theologian in Dresden, wrote to Johann von Müller: "A worthy counterpart to Eichhorn's concoction (sic., IntroductiontotheNewTestament) is Schleiermacher's challenge of Paul's first letter to Timothy, which Dr. Löffler in Gotha found so important that in his JournalforPreachers he has already given up this letter. It is very pleasing to me that the Schleiermacheran sophistry has been exposed by the youngmanPlanck in Göttingen in a way that does real credit to the contested letter of the apostle and its apologists." (Letter from November 14, 1808, in BriefeanJohannvonMüller. SupplementzudessensämmtlichenWerken, Published by Maurer-Constant, vol. 6, 1840, p. 152).

66 See NeueDeutscheBiographie, vol. 1, 1953, p. 725. Beckhaus was at that time a pastor in Iserlohn, but in 1815 became professor of theology in Marburg and advisor to the Consistory and Inspector for the Reformed Church of the Electorate in Hessen. The review of Schleiermacher brought Beckhaus attention from the scholarly world. The review of his book: BemerkungenüberdenGebrauchderapokryphischenBücherdesA. T. ZurErläuterungderntl. Schreibart, 1808, in the ALZ (196), 1912, begins with the sentence: "The writer known from his earlier exegetical works and most recently from his highly-lauded, fundamental examination of Schleiermacher's writing concerning Timothy..."

67HeidelbergischeJahrbuchderLiteratur, 1/3 (1808), p. 354.

68 Ibid., 338f.

69NLLZ 1808, p. 66.

70NeueTheologischeAnnalen, 1809, 651f.

71 G. W. Meyer, whose theological origin was in Göttingen, worked primarily on the hermeneutic and history of interpretation of the Old Testament: see AllgemeineDeutscheBiographie, vol. 21, 1885, 577f.

72 See F. Lücke, "Zum Andenken an Dr. Heinrich Ludwig Planck, weiland ordentlichem Professor der Theologie zur Göttingen. Eine biographische Mitteilung," in idem, Dr. GottliebJacobPlanck. EinbiographischerVersuch, 1835, 153-168. In addition to his famous father, Stäudlin, his teachers were Ammon and Eichhorn, in theology, and Heyne and Heeren, in philology, which fits perfectly with the above thesis. Planck became professor in 1810, and spent his entire life in Göttingen. His contributions to New Testament lexicography are regarded as significant. In 1817 and 1818 he critically discussed Schleiermacher's work on Luke.

73 See H.-J. Kraus, Geschichtederhistorisch-kritischenErforschungdesAltenTestaments, 31982, 174-189; R. Smend, DeutscheAlttestamentlerindreiJahrhunderten, 1989, 38-52. The relationship with Schleiermacher is set forth very well by E. Staehelin, Dewettiana. ForschungenundTextezuWilhelmLeberechtdeWettesLebenundWerk (StudienzurGeschichtederWissenschaftinBasel 2), 1956, but missing there is the letter from April 4, 1810, with which De Wette established a personal acquaintance (see M. Lenz, GeschichtederKöniglichenFriedrich-Wulhelms-UniversitätzuBerlin, vol. 4, Urkunden, AktenundBriefe, 1910, pp. 110f.).

80 See his letter from April 15, 1815, in M. Ohst (ed.), SchleiermacherunddieBekenntnisschriften. EineUntersuchungzuseinerReformations- undProtestantismusdeutung (BHTh 77). 1989, p. 39. The confessed "esteem for your great literary merit" certainly has the writing on Timothy in mind.